Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio stressed that accountability must not be delayed, even amid economic or national crises, as impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte continue to draw public attention.
In an interview on Patas sa Batas hosted by Atty. Dino de Leon, Justice Carpio addressed key legal issues surrounding the impeachment process, the Vice President’s legal strategy, and the strength of the evidence presented so far.
Accountability cannot be paused
Justice Carpio rejected the argument that the impeachment process should be set aside due to pressing national concerns such as economic pressures or rising fuel costs.
“Accountability cannot be set aside,” he said, emphasizing that constitutional processes must continue regardless of external challenges.
He noted that Congress can proceed with hearings even during recess periods, ensuring that impeachment proceedings move forward without disrupting other national priorities.
Legal strategy: Focus on jurisdiction
Justice Carpio observed that the Vice President’s response appears to focus heavily on jurisdictional issues rather than directly addressing the allegations.
According to him, this may indicate a legal strategy aimed at elevating the case to the Supreme Court.
He explained that questioning jurisdiction could potentially halt proceedings if the Supreme Court intervenes, allowing the defense to shift the battleground from Congress to the judiciary.
Complainants move to streamline proceedings
Justice Carpio said the decision of complainants not to file a reply to the Vice President’s answer is a practical move to avoid delays.
He noted that the response did not directly address specific allegations, making further exchanges unnecessary and allowing the process to proceed more efficiently.
Bank records and SALN verification seen as crucial
Justice Carpio identified financial records as a key issue in the impeachment proceedings.
He said the House Committee on Justice may issue subpoenas for bank documents, citing that bank secrecy laws allow disclosure in impeachment cases.
He also pointed out that the Ombudsman may be compelled to produce financial records, especially since public officials authorize verification of their assets when filing their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
According to Justice Carpio, discrepancies between declared assets and actual bank records could have significant implications for the case.
Unexplained wealth may shift burden of proof
Justice Carpio explained that if large, unexplained financial transactions are established, these may be presumed to be ill-gotten wealth under the law.
In such cases, the burden shifts to the official to explain the source of the funds.
He noted that failure to accurately declare assets in the SALN could itself be sufficient ground for impeachment.
Confidential funds issue raises constitutional concerns
Justice Carpio also addressed the controversy surrounding the use of confidential funds.
He emphasized that the Constitution guarantees the public’s right to information on matters of public interest, particularly the use of public funds.
He pointed out that while confidential funds are being invoked as a defense, there is no law providing clear limitations or exemptions from disclosure.
He further explained that Commission on Audit (COA) rules require that even fictitious names used in liquidation must be supported by real identities submitted in a sealed envelope—something he said may not have been complied with.
Evidence described as strong
Based on available information, Justice Carpio described the evidence against the Vice President as strong.
He cited issues such as:
- Use of allegedly fictitious names in liquidation documents
- Absence of supporting records required by auditing rules
- Financial transactions that may not match declared assets
Statements as admissible evidence
Justice Carpio also addressed statements attributed to the Vice President regarding alleged threats.
He said such statements may be considered extrajudicial admissions, which are admissible in evidence.
“These are declarations against interest,” he explained, noting that such statements are among the strongest forms of evidence in legal proceedings.
Impeachment as a test of accountability
Justice Carpio emphasized that the impeachment process is ultimately about reinforcing accountability among public officials.
“This should send a message that public officials are accountable at all times,” he said.
He added that the Constitution’s mandate on accountability must be given real effect, and that impeachment proceedings serve as a critical mechanism for ensuring that high-ranking officials remain answerable to the public.
Conclusion
Justice Carpio underscored that the outcome of the impeachment process will have broader implications beyond the case itself.
He said it presents an opportunity to strengthen institutional accountability and set a precedent for future public officials.